Ahh, okay. As long as it doesn't need the clients to be ssl aware.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:48:44PM +0300, Markus wrote: > >Don't use stunnel, use ssh, and forward the ports. Stunnel just creates > >an HTTPS connection, right? > > >From Stunnel's man page > (http://www.stunnel.org/faq/stunnel.html#description): > The stunnel program is designed to work as SSL encryption wrapper between > remote clients and local (inetd-startable) or remote servers. The concept is > that having non-SSL aware daemons running on your system you can easily set > them up to communicate with clients over secure SSL channels. > > Would ssh port forwarding be better method? -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
